What I believe he means is that vaccines, healthcare etc. will cut child mortality in Africa (where the Gates Foundation has pumped lots of money for such programs) and elsewhere in the 3rd world. The operative assumption that follows is that the birthrate will plummet, reducing future population increases. It is amongst the poor populations of the world that population is increasing. Rising standards of living and the expectation that children will live to adulthood served to dramatically reduce birthrates throughout the 1st world. He is not looking to kill people, just slow the current rate of increase. If the birthrates throughout the world equaled that of Europeans, Japanese, Americans, Canadians and so forth, population would slowly begin to fall. The population of the US/Canada/Europe/Japan/Australia would already be declining if it weren’t for immigration from 3rd world countries.

Gates father was a President of Planned Parenthood and had lots of grooming from his parents.

Margret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood was a proponent of eugenics.

“Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[85] Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.

Following Sanger, Alan Frank Guttmacher, MD was President of Plsnned Parenthood, (1898–1974) was an American obstetrician/gynecologist. He served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society.” Wikipedia

The problem is , humans are not smart enough to make decisions like that , ask yourself this :
Is there anything humans cant screw up , even with the best of intentions ? who is actually qualified to make those decisions in the case of ” negative ” eugenics . Birth control is stoping something before it exists by choice , and not getting rid of something that exists already . In order for things like that to work , you have to either commit a crime ( not telling the person of what it really does ) or by state sanctioned force , violating every aspect of the Constitution ……………hardly patriotic . Just sayin . China tried that …………it didnt work . But anyway , I think Freedom was right , a global economic collapse is pretty much going to reduce population numbers worldwide , and that does seem imminent . The guy has done a lot of good , but I think he ‘s not right on this one .

Gates is into population control and wants a negitive birth rate. He didn’t say it should be in non industrial populations. In fact their best efforts would still be here in the US with minorities. Of course maybe they think they have that covered.

Reducing infant mortality, and other preventable mortality as well, does serve to increase population in the short term but over a generation or so birthrates plummet as a result. A couple more generations are then needed to begin realizing declining populations. It is a long term strategy. The only things that can reduce population quickly are high CAR/CFR pandemics, all out war, or civilization collapse. CAR/CFR is case acquisition rate (what % of the population gets infected) and case fatality rate (what % of those infected die). Like with many other terms the word pandemic is used loosely these days. To make a dent in world population you’d need something on the order of the black plague on a worldwide basis. What happened in 1918 was trivial comparatively and not anything that actually reduced population. By all out war, I mean war beyond what was seen with WWII. As horrific as WWII was, it did not reduce world population. There were more people on earth when the war ended than there were when it started. It would require something far worse than WWII to reduce population. The last option is not a minor event like the Depression of the 1930’s or a run of the mill currency collapse or some such. To reduce population you would need a long term grid failure or something of that magnitude that causes civilization itself to fail.

The problem with the greens is that they live in a totally theoretical world. They want lots of things so long as they don’t have to pay for it or otherwise be impacted. In these parts they want green energy but then object to every proposed solar development in a “we need more solar, but not there” manner. We need wind energy “but not there”. Natural gas is better than oil, but don’t build any pipelines to get it to where it’s needed. Don’t even mention hydro power because dams are evil things. Then throw in “the American way of living is the problem” and in the next breath they think unfettered immigration from 3rd world countries is fair and just. Yup, bring in more people who aspire to our higher standard of living.